RSS

Is it true that “Women Are Less Principled Than Men” ???

18 Nov

Women Are Less Principled Than Men – Roissy/Heartiste
First click on the link above and read that post. Roissy/Heartiste often has some insightful posts that describe societal and sociological implications of the natures of men and women. Unfortunately the comments devolve very quickly. His post deserves to be explored from a Christian/Complmentarian point of view.

I suppose that most women will find the Roissy/Heartiste post offensive, but really it shows that men and women react differently and both ways are good within context. Men are more principled and women care more about feelings. Principles are using rules and logic to govern life matters and behavior. Women usually behave to avoid hurting the feelings of another women, while facts, logic, consequences and motivation do not matter. Feelings are the sole determinant of action.

Men have the capacity to stand against the crowd and women are mostly pliable. This trait is useful for a good woman to fulfill her role on Team Her Man. Yet without a strong confident man to lead her, she will be mainly Team Woman. It is a woman’s nature to be a “feeling” creature and it is not a bad thing unless it is used out of the proper context and becomes excessive in a society. It was interesting to observe the offense many women took to the Team Woman post and how they could not see the principles behind it and the positive aspects. In fact in order to refute the Team Woman concept, women acted in a Team Woman manner based on their feelings.

It is also worthwhile to reflect on whether women are in fact only more immediately empathetic and men are more long-term empathetic, by applying of principles and considering implications and consequences. CL wrote on this topic on her post, Pleasing Your Man

Useful comments will build upon the truths rather than a knee-jerk refutation. For those choose to refute, please explain how it is acceptable to claim women have capacity in one area but it is unacceptable to claim men have a greater capacity in another area. What Principle is at work in this belief?

Advertisements
 
54 Comments

Posted by on November 18, 2011 in culture, Masculinity, Sex, The Decline

 

54 responses to “Is it true that “Women Are Less Principled Than Men” ???

  1. Ulysses

    November 18, 2011 at 11:41 am

    If God had made men and women the same save genitals, it would be constant battle regardless of societal pressures. We see what happens when women try to act like men thanks to feminism, but women can still be handled thanks to their inherent desire to work for the good of the team. From a complementarian perspective, the differences are two halves of the whole. Men set the agenda for the family and delineate the rules and boundaries, women work hard for the family’s benefit within those rules and boundaries. If both were coolly rational and dispassionate, both would most likely second guess one another constantly. If both were only looking out for the team by following emotions, there would be chaos. Again, there would be destructive tension. The feelings, untethered from logic, would flit hither and thither without any thought of strategy or long term strength.

    It’s easy to denigrate women for being more flexible and focused on the greater group good, but how could He not make them that way if the goal is to be fruitful? Men just have to harness that energy, think the internal combustion engine, to keep the journey moving forward.

     
  2. Will S.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Agree with both of you.

    I’ve always felt that women relate more passionately to people as individuals, particularly to those close around them, while men are a bit more inclined to relate more passionately to people collectively, hence the greater interest in men, historically, in political movements of all kinds, but particularly those that are ‘big ideas’, about how to organize society, etc.; e.g. the labour movement; whereas the kind of political movements women have gotten involved in are ones either focused on personal behaviour – e.g. the temperance movement – or ones focused on ending perceived injustices for particular groups, e.g. the abolitionist movement, due to being outraged at mistreatments meted out to individuals that they learned about, in groups historically disadvantaged. Obviously I over-generalize a bit here, but nevertheless, I’m certain that the differences between the sexes have tended to play themselves out this way.

    Unfortunately, this has tended to mean that feminism, affirmative action, gay rights, and the like, have been driven by female sentimentality, whose consequences for society have been largely disastrous. The temperance movement was likewise disastrous. Our forefathers were not foolish in originally restricting the franchise to themselves…

    I am complementarian, and do think that God made women as described, giving them perhaps ‘bigger’ or ‘softer’ hearts (however one wishes to put it) for a reason; it is a gift that works well in families, in communities, etc. I think it is less helpful on the wider societal scale; that male ‘hard-heartedness’ and greater propensity towards rational activity, is better there…

     
  3. trent13

    November 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    If principled is to imply that men are more moral by nature I would have to disagree. I think of principle as being a gender neutral word because anyone can be principled or unprincipled regardless of their sex. I think too there should be taken into account that men are more independent (or stubborn) and are less likely to change their opinions unless faced with what they consider incontrovertible evidence and are intellectually honest enough to admit it, but one’s principles can be completely false which would be to the detriment of society.

    Women are just as principled, or unprincipled, in that sense as men are, but would have greater difficulty in precisely naming what those principles are, even though they are the basis for their thinking. Their emotions act in the service of their principles, and I think it takes equal or greater emotional imperative in order for the principle itself to be changed (they must have feelings engendered which would cause them to approve of the contrary principle). With men it’s typically not their emotions but logic and rationality which immediately determine their actions, but that logic and rationality is based off principles.

    In essence, women filter information in and out through an emotional filter, men through a logical filter, but either way those are only conduits either for or against their own or other people’s principles. Both are guided by principles but their actions and reactions differ according to their sex.

    On the other hand, women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory to each other because they are not as clear thinking as men. So what men might consider fractious and capricious is perfectly in keeping with their own principles because they fail to see any logical contradiction between them. As my father used to say, they just don’t see the big picture (interesting that “attention to detail” came to be such a great thing to have on a resume after women came gung-ho into the work-force).

     
  4. Odds

    November 18, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    A friend of mine once quipped, at the end of a night of drinking after a bad breakup, “Men get mad when the rules don’t work the same for everyone; women get mad when the rules keep them from winning.”

    That’s where the “principled” thing comes in. I can’t back this up with data, but in my life experience, men are more likely to stand by their beliefs and principles when it is inconvenient or costly to them. That’s still a minority of men, but the women who I could say the same about are few and far between.

     
  5. 7man

    November 18, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    @trent13

    Principles are objective and cannot contradict to each other. If principles governing personal conduct cannot be articulated then it is merely feelings, which are subjective. Acting however you feel is right, is not acting on principles.

    You said women are governed by principles just as much as men are, yet women cannot name the principles. This is merely a justification to elevate feelings over “logic and rationality.” The Bill of Rights is an impartial unemotional codification of Principles (not empathetic feelings).

    Principles can never be false, because that person would be unprincipled and self-serving. You are confusing “values” with “principles.”

     
  6. trent13

    November 18, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    I wasn’t attempting to elevate one over the other, I consider them both necessary to healthy human development and general running of the world, but point taken.

     
  7. laceagate

    November 19, 2011 at 12:30 am

    On the other hand, women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory to each other because they are not as clear thinking as men. So what men might consider fractious and capricious is perfectly in keeping with their own principles because they fail to see any logical contradiction between them. As my father used to say, they just don’t see the big picture (interesting that “attention to detail” came to be such a great thing to have on a resume after women came gung-ho into the work-force).

    That last sentence stood out to me. This is an example of how principles are inextricably tied to long-term implications or in other words, “seeing the big picture.” Congruency must exist with principles in order to withstand the test of time. Values change over time, but principles do not.

    I would not say that women are unprincipled, but many women lack the knowledge or proper instruction to recognize and develop principles. I agree with the statement that women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory, and for this reason it makes it difficult to articulate. Could it be that women tend to be educated in terms of, values and preferences, versus principles? The teachings of “do what you feel is right,” and “do what your heart says to do” are force fed, without much thought to the consequences. “Do what your heart says” is a cornerstone value operating under the guise of principle. Women aren’t taught “do what your head says to do, over your heart.”

    Of course, this is not denying that women are more emotionally-driven, as scientific research demonstrates. Emotions have a proper place. The problem, that I think we can all agree on, is that emotional reactions to specific situations (versus principled responses applicable to a wide variety of contexts) are synonymous with “principled thinking.” But they are really value judgments.

    Unfortunately, this has tended to mean that feminism, affirmative action, gay rights, and the like, have been driven by female sentimentality, whose consequences for society have been largely disastrous.

    Sentimentality is driven by what is “fair” rather than what is just. It was feminism that started off with “we want to be fair for everyone.” Justice as a principle, is not going to be given much airtime because justice isn’t about giving everyone what they want, but about ensuring that everyone gets what is needed.

     
  8. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 12:46 am

    “Sentimentality is driven by what is “fair” rather than what is just. It was feminism that started off with “we want to be fair for everyone.” Justice as a principle, is not going to be given much airtime because justice isn’t about giving everyone what they want, but about ensuring that everyone gets what is needed.”

    Agreed, Lacey. Progressives, like their Marxist cousins, may invoke the language of justice, but they really mean ‘fairness’ as they see it; true justice may have very little to do with it, and often does. They’re like whiny, petulant children crying “Not fair!”; or Occupy Wall Street types for that matter.

     
  9. CL

    November 19, 2011 at 1:14 am

    So principles are consistent and not contradictory unless they are female principles, which are cannot be articulated or defined. Principles held by men are not contradictory, so how can women hold contradictory principles and not be unprincipled?

    There are no “male principles” and “female principles”, only principles.

     
  10. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 2:37 am

    Agreed, CL; right is right, and wrong is wrong, for everyone, surely. Nobody should get a pussy pass or a penis pass…

     
  11. laceagate

    November 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    So principles are consistent and not contradictory unless they are female principles, which are cannot be articulated or defined.

    They’re not principles, but are values. That’s why they’re difficult to articulate because values change, whereas principles do not.

    There are such things as “female values” and “male values,” but Will S. was correct in stating that right is right and wrong is wrong for everyone.

     
  12. CL

    November 19, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    So you’re saying your earlier statement, “I agree with the statement that women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory, and for this reason it makes it difficult to articulate”, is not true then? Now according to you, those are, in fact, “values”, although how contradictory values can be held, I don’t know – this seems like an acrobatic semantics show. Make up your mind.

    Since the men posting here seemed to understand the concept of principles and the women did not, it seems evident that women are less principled.

     
  13. 7man

    November 19, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Women feel they have principles, even though they don’t really know what principles are or how to apply principles or that values cannot be contraditory, if they are based on principles. Yet women are absolutely certain that, in general, women are just as principled or unprincipled as men.

     
  14. CL

    November 19, 2011 at 8:43 pm

     
  15. laceagate

    November 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Women feel they have principles, even though they don’t really know what principles are or how to apply principles or that values cannot be contradictory, if they are based on principles.

    The emphasis is mine, and that’s my point. They don’t know what principles are because preferences and values are taught in lieu of actual principles. You can masquerade values as principles but it doesn’t change the facts.

     
  16. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    @ CL: {Gag} 🙂

     
  17. CL

    November 19, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Female principles at work – a walking contradiction.

     
  18. trent13

    November 19, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    I was thinking more (and discussing with my spouse more about the subject) and it seems to me that differentiating ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is pointless. The word principles itself can be used objectively or subjectively (meaning they can be wrong and they can be changed). When using the word subjectively people can hold contradictory principles (i.e. the person who believes that Catholicism is objectively the true religion, but also believes that everyone else also has the right to be whatever religion they desire), and this doesn’t make them unprincipled, these are still their foundational tenets, even if they are wrong. When ‘principle” is used objectively, as in the principles of physics, they are true for all people every where and cannot contradict themselves.

    I don’t agree that one can use the Bill of Rights as an example of objective principle; there are certain principles in the Bill of Rights which many do not agree with, nor does it hold any divine or scientific mandate whereby its truth is absolutely or objectively knowable. If subjective principle cannot be wrong, and that is the sense in which you are using it, we’d be living in a utopia. Unless you are speaking of the principles of Natural Law, meaning that the argument is men are inherently more moral, which I don’t agree with either.

    With that in mind, I think men adhere more to their determined subjective principles, as opposed to women whose principles can more easily be changed (not making them any less principled) since they are more predominantly led by their emotions. But both men and women are ruled by subjective, and in some cases, objective, principles equally.

    From dictionary.reference.com

    prin·ci·ple
       [prin-suh-puhl]
    noun
    1.
    an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
    2.
    a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
    3.
    a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
    4.
    principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one’s principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
    5.
    guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

     
  19. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    contradictory principles (i.e. the person who believes that Catholicism is objectively the true religion, but also believes that everyone else also has the right to be whatever religion they desire)

    So, you would not have people have the right to be wrong?

     
    • trent13

      November 19, 2011 at 10:18 pm

      It’s not that I would not have it. I direct you to Libertas Praestantissimum from Pope Leo XIII, which clarifies the idea that freewill does not mean freedom to choose between the good and license, but between objective goods. Meaning that if a religion is objectively wrong, which the Catholic Church has always held there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, than it is an abuse of our freewill to knowingly choose it, as it would be an abuse of our free will to choose anything sinful.

       
  20. trent13

    November 19, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    By the way, thank you for a provocative subject. I enjoy a stimulating debate that doesn’t disintegrate into getting personal and insulting, though I usually just ignore the personal stuff anyway.

     
  21. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Ah, I see. Well, I’m a Protestant, not a Papist, so I don’t care what any pope, past or present, has said. And as a Calvinist, I also don’t believe in free will, but I won’t get into that digression here… 🙂

    We have us here a pan-traditionalist-Christian blog – I won’t say ‘ecumenical’ because I don’t believe any one of us should paper over our differences, or downplay them, or try to minimize them in any way – we’re men, after all, we don’t do that shit – but we’re focused more on what we have in common, as regards understanding the world around us – so while I have no objection in the slightest to you Catholics discussing amongst yourselves, even here, what the implications of a certain ex cathedra teaching here or there, has for yourselves, note that such arguments aren’t going to pass muster with such an ‘heretic’ as I. 🙂

     
  22. trent13

    November 19, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    I understand, and I knew this blog was a pan-traditionalist blog as you put it. The reference to the Church in regards to contradictory principles was the first thing I thought of as an example, and I wouldn’t have bothered with referencing it further had you not asked..

     
  23. Will S.

    November 19, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    No problem, I just didn’t understand what you meant in that passage there, but now I do; thanks for clarifying. Cheers.

     
  24. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 2:22 am

    contradictory principles (i.e. the person who believes that Catholicism is objectively the true religion, but also believes that everyone else also has the right to be whatever religion they desire)

    There is only one operating principle here, and that is that people have freedom of religion or the right to follow their own free will. There is nothing contradictory in believing something to be correct but holding that others are free to disbelieve the same.

     
  25. Will S.

    November 20, 2011 at 8:19 am

    I didn’t think so, either, CL; after all, liberal democracy is based exactly upon such a principle, freedom of religion.

    Count me out, of any movement to establish any kind of theocracy that wants to FORCE everyone to belong to one denomination…

     
  26. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Funny thing is, I was thinking “I don’t know, are women less principled than men?” And then the two women besides me here answered the question for me. ::facepalm::

     
  27. Will S.

    November 20, 2011 at 9:37 am

    🙂

     
  28. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 10:28 am

    It helps first off to know what a principle is. Don’t they teach people anything at school any more? (Rhetorical question – hopefully people know what that is!)

     
  29. trent13

    November 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    @ CL Apparently you are the only one that can wonder about whether men are more principled than women, and a definition isn’t good enough for you? Unlike you, I prefer that we don’t live in a world that makes assumptions about terms, since that typically leads to misunderstandings, assumptions about other people’s intellectual abilities, and fruitless debate or argument. You are condescending towards me for what exactly I don’t know, except perhaps that you must feel the need to build yourself up at other people’s expense. In the end I don’t really care, except in so far as it distracts from the question at hand, one which I thought provocative and interesting. And as regards the following:

    There is only one operating principle here, and that is that people have freedom of religion or the right to follow their own free will. There is nothing contradictory in believing something to be correct but holding that others are free to disbelieve the same.

    The operating principle of the example is that it is inherently contradictory if a person is a Catholic and also believes in freedom of religion because it is part of the Catholic faith to hold that others do not have the God-given right to choose evil or to choose any other religion than Catholicism. Thus, to be Catholic, and to also say that one can, by right, also be non-Catholic, is contradictory. If one holds something to be objectively true for all peoples everywhere, one cannot also simultaneously hold that something in contradiction to that truth is also true, because it then ceases to be objective. The purpose of the example was to show to how people can and do hold subjective contradictory principles.

    7man: Observe in the first paragraph how trent13 says she “doesn’t know,” but then launches into a shaming campaign based on imagined motivation.

     
  30. 7man

    November 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    @trent13

    Your last comment was so convoluted and poorly constructed as to be incomprehensible.

    You previously said, “I was thinking more (and discussing with my spouse more about the subject) and it seems to me that differentiating ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is pointless.” In my opinion it is fruitless and absurd to debate the topic of principles with a woman that doesn’t understand principles and thinks the differentiation is pointless. My advice is to stop thinking and instead listen.

    You previously stated that, “women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory to each other because they are not as clear thinking as men.” You have clearly demonstrated that you don’t understand principles. Maybe it requires more clarity of thought than many women are capable of.

     
    • trent13

      November 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm

      You previously stated that ”women are more likely to hold principles which are contradictory to each other because they are not as clear thinking as men.” You have clearly demonstrated that you don’t understand principles. Maybe it requires more clarity of thought than many women are capable of.

      Yes, and it was your pointing out that the reasoning was flawed which caused me to discuss it with my husband, think about it some more and realize I should look up the definition. So, even though I more recently quoted the actual definition of principle, and used it in the proper sense of the word, you yet claim that I don’t understand principles because I used the word unclearly in the first place. It seems to me you don’t understand the definition of the word which is central to your post. Your belief that I don’t understand principle, though the definition I thought was very clear, doesn’t disprove what I was saying regarding men and principle in the comment which included the definition of principle. Rather than attacking me, why not attack the argument?

       
  31. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    I prefer that we don’t live in a world that makes assumptions about terms, since that typically leads to misunderstandings, assumptions about other people’s intellectual abilities, and fruitless debate or argument.

    The opposite is true. Without defined meanings that we can all agree on, words are not much use and fruitful debate impossible.

    You are condescending towards me for what exactly I don’t know, except perhaps that you must feel the need to build yourself up at other people’s expense.

    You are reading too much into it; I’m merely pointing out error.

    it is part of the Catholic faith to hold that others do not have the God-given right to choose evil or to choose any other religion than Catholicism

    Bullshit! Catholicism holds to free will, therefore, God has given us the ability to choose whether to follow Him or not. We come to Him of our own volition, not as forced slaves.

    Even when it is explained, you still don’t get it, so I won’t explain the same thing twice. You are muddled and all over the place, speaking untruth and projecting emotions. That is a distraction and certainly doesn’t make for a “stimulating discussion”.

     
  32. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    prin·ci·ple/ˈprinsəpəl/
    Noun:

    1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
    2. A rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior.

    That seems to be the definition we’re all using. I also see nothing in the more detailed Wikipedia entry on Principle anything that says it’s possible to hold contradictory principles. By definition, this is simply not possible, and the apparent contradiction trent13 describes is not a contradiction of principles, as I have already demonstrated.

    In order to understand a new concept, it is necessary to step back, listen for a while, try it on – i.e. take it as if it were true and try to apply it to test the hypothesis for yourself – and then come back with a reasonable argument for or against.

     
  33. Cinarnation

    November 20, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    I like Ulysses’ explanation.

    I do think people aren’t born principled, but that because of the way their brains work men more naturally understand the concept and can easily discern principles. Women learn to be principled from men. But on the ground, I know very few truly principled people, men or women.

    Isn’t being principled basically doing what you believe is right no matter the cost? If you think principles are the same as morals, which women tend to do, then I can see the confusion. In other words, women confuse the actions that come from principles as the principle itself. For example, if women embrace the principle of modesty, they’ll think it’s the trappings of modesty that is the principle and get all stuck in making up a moral code.

     
  34. 7man

    November 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    @trent13
    You started out your comment by trivializing the definitions and then you quoted the definition of ‘principles.’ Since then you have been waffling and have not conceding the point. You started out emotionally saying that women are as principled as men. Now you are trying to save face by shifting the discussion. This is a male blog and you if you want to be taken seriously, you should accommodate your ways to male ways of principled debate.

    You need to say you were wrong and initially “talking out of your arse” or you really do not abide by principles. Men do not NEED to be NICE in order to be principled. Nice try in shaming me, but it won’t work.

     
  35. trent13

    November 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    The opposite is true. Without defined meanings that we can all agree on, words are not much use and fruitful debate impossible.

    :: faceplant :: The opposite is true? Yes, that was exactly my point. My original statement was: I prefer that we DON’T live in a world that makes assumptions about terms… ,The opposite of what I said would be a world with “defined meanings that we can all agree on, [because] words are not much use and fruitful debate impossible [without them]” In case you didn’t notice, those were your words I quoted. Yes. That is the point of defining terms, that is the point of my argument for not making assumptions about terms, which is what you argue for with your condescending: It helps first off to know what a principle is. Don’t they teach people anything at school any more? (Rhetorical question – hopefully people know what that is!) How about no, let’s not assume that everyone had the enviable education that you apparently had, instead, let’s define our terms so we don’t end up arguing past each other purposely.

    I’m merely pointing out error. I don’t think it takes much reading into for anyone to see that you are pedestalizing yourself at the benefit of “the other two females who commented on here.” I don’t have a problem with people arguing against my arguments. Make it personal and you are taking it beyond “merely point out error.”

    Bullshit! Catholicism holds to free will, therefore, God has given us the ability to choose whether to follow Him or not. We come to Him of our own volition, not as forced slaves. Yes, what were you saying again about projecting emotions? Apparently you feel that you can say something about Catholicism with any authority, which makes me suspect you are a Catholic, in which case I suggest you read Pope Pius XIII’s encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum which clearly states the Catholic Church’s position on freewill, and if you still do not understand it, there is always NewAdvent.org which can enlighten you. I’m afraid you don’t know your faith if you believe that we have a God-given right to choose to believe any religion.

    Even when it is explained, you still don’t get it, so I won’t explain the same thing twice. You are muddled and all over the place, speaking untruth and projecting emotions. That is a distraction and certainly doesn’t make for a “stimulating discussion”. It would help if you explained anything with any clarity in the first place. My initial comment was marred for not being clear on terminology, to which end I defined the term principles, and the debate has yet to move from there (at least while I am writing this comment) Your speaking about a faith which you do not understand (hence untruth) and projecting your emotions by condescension and snide remarks certainly is a distraction and does not make for a “stimulating discussion.” It will relieve you to know that I am out from hereon.

    7man: Observe in the first paragraph how trent13 says she “doesn’t know,” but then launches into a shaming campaign based on imagined motivation.

    Oh, I’m sorry, I think it’s rather too much to posit that I know for sure that those were her motivations. Unlike either of you, I make no assumptions, it was simply the only reason I could think as to why someone would behave in such a fashion. Apparently according to you the world would be a far better place if I just called her an arrogant bitch, but I just don’t think she is, or at least I don’t know, she could be. Call it whatever the hell you like, you are both rude and I can see that you can’t seem to debate without attacking the person. So, since I don’t have time to be answering all of your excessive ad hominem attacks, farewell.

     
  36. 7man

    November 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm

     
  37. laceagate

    November 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    For example, if women embrace the principle of modesty, they’ll think it’s the trappings of modesty that is the principle and get all stuck in making up a moral code.

    In addition, it’s from the making up a moral code where value judgments are often made. From what I understand, principles should be parsimonious. If we use the modesty example, the less parsimonious the principle, the more of a value it becomes.

     
  38. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Or she could go with the following plan:

    Step one: understand what principles are.
    Step two: go make some sammiches.

    After several re-readings I see where, due to her unclear writing and her failure to grasp the basic definition of Principle, I misunderstood what she was trying to say. With both these factors and all the emotionality, the meaning conveyed was not what she intended.

    It helps to be able to write clearly and to not end up red in the face with emotion, which brings out the defence mechanisms and makes it pointless to try to explain anything. It’s also good to be able to admit your mistakes and move on, rather than throwing out baseless accusations of ad hominem attacks.

    Cinarnation hit the nail on the head here.

     
  39. Cinarnation

    November 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    “If we use the modesty example, the less parsimonious the principle, the more of a value it becomes.”

    Laceagate, could you help me understand what this means? I’m not sure I get what it means for a principle to be parsimonious – distilled down maybe?

     
  40. 7man

    November 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @laceagate

    PARSIMONIOUS
    Synonyms: cheap, chintzy, close, closefisted, mean, mingy, miserly, niggard, niggardly, stingy, penny-pinching, penurious, pinching, pinchpenny, spare, sparing, stinting, tight, tightfisted, uncharitable, ungenerous

    Antonyms: bounteous, bountiful, charitable, freehanded, generous, liberal, munificent, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting

    I think applying the word “parsimonious” to modesty is misguided because it implies that male sexuality is bad and must be controlled by women by repression. This is not consistent with my principles of sexuality.

     
  41. CL

    November 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I too was wondering about the use of the word parsimonious is this context.

     
  42. laceagate

    November 20, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Oops, guys, I should have defined what parsimonious meant. I was using it in terms of hypothesis and logic, but I see that the term parsimony would have been more appropriate. I apologized if I caused confusion, Cinarnation (sheepish).

    Parsimony is also known as Occam’s Razor, or that the simplest explanation is true. Occam’s Razor is also a principled explanation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    Let me go back to the modesty example. We can say that it is a principle for women to be modest. This is succinct.

    Once we start to say modesty’s standards change with culture, time, and in context, we create a value system of modesty. Then, it can be argued that modesty is valued more in traditional cultures versus non-traditional cultures. Going further, if we say that since modesty is valued more in traditional cultures, or with Christian women, Christian women then act in ways to abide by the value system of modesty they created. Then you see the women balk at the woman who dons a low-cut top when she’s out with her husband (who too, believes that modesty is a principle but likes it when his wife wears low-cut clothes around him) and the other women contend that she must not value modesty as they do.

    These statements change what modesty means and it’s these changes and applications of values that can lead to the repression of sexuality.

     
  43. laceagate

    November 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Cinarnation, does that make sense? I know my poor word choice threw everyone off.

     
  44. Cinarnation

    November 20, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Yes, Laceagate, it does make sense. Thank you for taking the time to make it clear.

     
  45. Cinarnation

    November 20, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    This distinction is what makes it work for men to set public policy and women to spend their time in charitable activities. Men understand that hard cases make bad law. Women don’t tend to. Men don’t tend to notice human suffering (I’m sorry, guys, if I’m stating this badly – I’m not saying you don’t care if people suffer) or at least they don’t necessarily feel like they have to fix it. Women tend to need to fix it. It’s what makes us good at wiving (not too sure that’s really a word), mothering, caring for the elderly, caring for neighbors, etc. People tend to be more important to us than principles. As women have disappeared from the community into the marketplace, fewer people are being cared for as they need to be.

     
  46. 7man

    November 20, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    @Cinarnation
    I accept your characterization of men. Caring about immediate suffering of those that do not “belong” to them is not a strong male trait. Men care more about long-term consequences.

    Why is it that women need to say “me too” about traits were men excel above women? Could it be insecurity?

     
  47. Cinarnation

    November 20, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    I think some of it is insecurity – women are well known for being insecure, but also because those intangibles that we are so good at are completely devalued. So what are we good for? Productivity is everything, and sitting rocking an ill child all day or holding a dying person’s hand or visiting with the lonely elderly neighbor or greeting our tired husband with a smile and a cold beer are completely nonproductive.

    Insecurity or not, it’s also unproductive and dishonest for women to claim male strengths. Men and women are different – that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Plus, I think what women hear when you say women are less principled is an all or nothing thing. They miss the less part. And there’s also that many women personally know men who are less principled than they are, so because we are so detail oriented it’s hard to see an issue like this globally rather than personally.

     
  48. Matthew

    November 20, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    I’m thinking about instituting a rule that female commenters here must have recently been spanked. Otherwise how can their principles be fresh in their minds?

     
  49. Will S.

    November 21, 2011 at 7:58 am

    LOL!

    They’d also best tread carefully, lest the Moohammer be brought out. 😉

     
  50. CL

    November 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    LOL @ Matthew

     
  51. 7man

    November 22, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    I came across a relevant post by Gerp.
    http://grerp.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-trusting-women.html

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s